Connecting with Tragedy Through Landscapes of …memoryconnection.org/.../12/ShannonDavisJackyBowring.pdf—Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring 379 those involved. From built, spatial,

Memory ConnectionVolume 1 Number 1© 2011 The Memory Waka

Connecting with Tragedy Through Landscapes of Memory: Memorial Design, Tourism, and the Post-Genocide Memoryscapes of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Germany

Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring

Memory ConnectionVolume 1 Number 1© 2011 The Memory Waka

377

Connecting with Tragedy Through Landscapes of Memory: Memorial Design, Tourism, and the Post-Genocide Memoryscapes of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Germany

Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring

Abstract

In recent years the act and practice of memorialisation has become increasingly

complex due to the influence of globalisation. As the world grows ever smaller,

the opportunities offered to us to engage the international memoryscape are

many and far-reaching. Memoryscapes—memorial landscapes—are today infused

by the tension between local needs and global expectations, offering highly

concentrated places in which to investigate the physical expression of memory.

Multiple pressures (both internal and global)—including the demands of time,

religion, politics, and economics—dictate both the form and narrative expressed

by memorials in post-genocide societies. With growing tourist industries,

countries emerging from regimes of genocide (such as Cambodia and Rwanda)

are today engaging the international visitor through their memoryscapes

of genocide. This article explores the post-genocide memoryscapes of Germany,

Cambodia, and Rwanda, investigating their ability through memorial form

(representational or non-representational), to “connect” international visitors

with foreign “memory”—a type of memory with which they may have little

previous association.

Keywords: memory, memorial, genocide, design, interpretation

Connecting with Tragedy Through Landscapes of Memory: Memorial Design, Tourism, and the Post-Genocide Memoryscapes of Cambodia, Rwanda, and Germany — Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring

378

Introduction

Western nations are today loaded with symbolic sites, dates, and events that

provide a kind of social continuity that contributes to a collectively shared

memory, and establishes spatial and temporal reference points within societal

groups.1 In recent years, the critical view of memorialisation has become

increasingly complex, in part due to the influence of globalisation. Architect, Peter

Tonkin, and artist, Janet Laurence, state that in the twenty-first century: “We are in

the midst of a worldwide obsession with memorializing that has been unequalled

since the age of the dictators”.2 Monuments, history museums, memorial museums,

public sculptures, grave-yards, commemorative sites, and memorial landscapes

are created and dedicated to people, places, and events. At an unrivalled moment

in history, spaces dedicated to the memory of the past are found throughout the

world, and seem increasingly to commemorate a past involving mass death.

Historically, individual nations have held sets of meanings and interpretations

in relation to their past which were developed into memorials and commemorative

spaces to reinforce peoples’ identification with specific social values. In doing

so, they create a collective national identity.3 “Globalisation”, has, however, led

to an increased interconnectedness amongst the world’s populations. As William

Wishard suggests, globalisation is far more than non-Western nations adopting free

markets and democratic political systems: “At its core, [globalisation] means that

the full scope of western ideas and modes of living are gradually seeping into the

fabric of the world.”4

The influence of globalisation, and under particular consideration here, of

“Westernisation”, is clear in the expression of public memory of genocide in

Cambodia and Rwanda. For example, Serge Thion states that the paradigm of

genocide for the West is still very much centred on the Holocaust: “Jews and

Khmers do not mourn and bury the dead in the same way and there is a risk

that our Western concept of ‘memory’ could be entirely irrelevant to the Khmers

who obviously have their own.”5 Tourism today allows for, and supports, the

permeability of our world that globalisation has provided, creating a globe that is

fully accessible to those who have the will and means to explore it. It has become

clear that tourist interest in recent world tragedies is a growing phenomenon in the

twenty-first century.6

Memorialisation, and the form that memory takes, is understood within

contemporary thought as being unbounded in its expression. From its readily

understood and widely accepted expression—through art, music, theatre, literature,

sculpture, and architecture, to spatial or experiential places, to the less tangible

expressions through the creation of national holidays, appearance on currency,

or even an official judicial decision—memorialisation occurs in many forms. The

social act of memorialisation, and the physical embodiment of memory in the

landscape, as particularly considered here, sees “tragedy” today investigated as

a genre of design. This is a category of design that explores and expresses it in

both tangible and intangible forms to meet the many needs and expectations of


379

those involved. From built, spatial, and visual form to symbolic, experiential, or

abstract form, the expression of tragedy in our landscape today demands a broader

perspective than has been experienced in history: “The romantics thought that

memory bound us in a deep sense of the past, associated with melancholia, but

today we think of memory as a mode of re-presentation, and as belonging ever

more to the present.”7

Considered in this way, the act of interpretation therefore sees memorials

become as much about the present as they are the past. This article investigates

the development of the post-genocide memoryscapes of Cambodia and Rwanda

in relation to the evolution and development of the German memorial landscape.

It also explores how sites of genocide memorialisation in these countries—sites

within a history, culture, and place with which many visitors have little previous

personal association—attempt to “connect” the international tourist with tragic

history through memorial form and their landscapes of memory.

Design interpretation

It has long been accepted that architecture and landscapes possess “meaning”; to

be more than mere structure or space.8 It is also held that the creation of meaning

within a site is not just about the intended meaning stated by the designer at

conception, but that it is created and recreated with every individual experience.

Design interpretation opens a project to the wider world, to a larger community,

changing and relating to cultural and societal difference throughout time.9

As Juan Bonta states, “Interpretations—like forms themselves—fulfil a cultural,

historically conditioned role. We interpret buildings in certain ways because in

so doing we can throw some light upon aspects of the world in which we live.”10

We interpret memorials, built or otherwise, for similar reasons—to elucidate in

the present, a part of our world for which an expression of memory has been

communicated. Coupled with the act of interpretation is the notion of “pre-

understanding”, a concept introduced by Martin Heidegger. According to him, this

concept acknowledges the fore-structure of how we see and understand things, the

cultural historicality we bring with us unreflectively to a reading or act, in this case

the act of memorial interpretation.11

It could be said, therefore, that the practice of design interpretation becomes

more relevant than the design or creation of form itself. The ability of a

memorial to “connect” with people and create meaning stands in its ability to be

interpreted—to speak to the group or individual through time. Germany, and its

treatment of memorialisation during the post-Holocaust period, today provides an

example from which memorial development and the opportunity for interpretation

can be considered, acting here also as a base from which these can be analysed in

Cambodia and Rwanda.


380

Creating a memoryscape of genocide–representation and the interpretation of memory through design

In its function as a political tool within post-conflict societies, memorialisation

can be used as a form of social remembering and forgetting, often selecting and

distorting memory to serve present needs. Today the German memoryscapes of

genocide illustrate a progression of time, politics, and societal needs, depicted

clearly through the creation, design, and development of an extensive landscape of

memorial sites. From the preservation of concentration and extermination camps

(such as the Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum), to Jochen Gerz and Esther

Shalev-Gerz’s anti-memorial, Monument against Fascism, and Peter Eisenman’s

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, Germany has confronted Holocaust

memory and its physical expression in many ways over the last 60 years.

While athletes and visitors from all over the world were participating in the

1936 Berlin Olympics, just 20 kilometres north the Sachsenhausen concentration

camp was being expanded and developed to serve the Reich capital (Figure 1).

Sachsenhausen was a “preventative detention camp” to which the Gestapo took

people it regarded as political enemies of the National Socialist regime, and those

it persecuted for social, biological, or racial reasons.12 Of the more than 200,000

inmates held at the camp between 1934 and 1945, tens of thousands died as a

result of extreme physical abuse, malnutrition, disease, execution, and medical

murder. The second chapter in the history of Sachsenhausen began soon after

the camp’s liberation in August 1945, when the Soviet Secret Service moved

its “Special Camp No. 7” to Sachsenhausen where those who had held official

positions in the Nazi state were imprisoned. Remaining operational until 1950,

12,000 prisoners are believed to have died during these five years under

Soviet control.13

Figure 1. Sachsenhausen

Concentration Camp,

Oranienburg, Germany. Photo

by author (2007).


381

The Sachsenhausen National Memorial was erected by the German Democratic

Republic (1961-1990). During this time its past as a camp run by the Soviet Secret

Service was concealed. The official interpretation of the memorial “was to serve

solely as a reminder of the concentration camp”.14 The part played by the Soviet

Union in the military downfall of the National Socialists was the central idea

expressed by the memorial site’s culture of remembrance.

The memorial constructed at the centre of the site, titled Tower of Nations

(Figure 2), was the central memorial and emblem of the Sachsenhausen National

Memorial during this time. Eighteen red triangles mounted on the obelisk-like

structure represent the prisoners’ main countries of origin in remembrance of

the camp’s political and foreign prisoners. The memorial was designed to make

a heroic statement of the communist resistance in Europe, a concept made

particularly clear by Rene Graetz’s sculpture, Liberation, that sits in front of the

tower and which depicts two liberated prisoners standing next to a Red Army

soldier. Jutta Dommaschk states: “The historical topography was transformed by

the systematic re-organisation of the site and its conversion into a monumental

glorification of the defeat of SS rule”.15

For the Sachsenhausen memorial, like many spaces of public memory created

during this time in Germany, leaders of the German Democratic Republic were

primarily interested in representing “historical policy” and not in preserving

the traces of history. As a result, the demolition and elimination of some

“specific” history occurred, and entire groups of victims were disregarded and

actively forgotten. After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the memorial at

Sachsenhausen became the Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum and today

houses a series of permanent exhibitions which cover a “more complete” history of

the camp from 1936-1957.

Figure 2. Tower of Nations,

with sculpture, Liberation, in

front, Sachsenhausen

Memorial and Museum,

Orenianburg, Germany.

Photo by author (2007).


382

The importance of retaining these concentration and extermination camp

memorials throughout Europe is because they are spaces to experience the actual

place of suffering, to provide a place to mourn, and to learn about the specific

history. Like many memorial sites within Germany, Sachsenhausen today stands as

a “representational” memorial dedicated to the preservation and documentation of

first-hand evidence. By the 1990s, however, the discussion over how to remember

Europe’s murdered Jewish community intensified, and a new national memorial

was proposed. In 2005, Eisenman’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe was

officially dedicated. Unlike the representational, didactic Sachsenhasuen memorial,

it offers an expression of genocide memory within a “non-representational”

abstract form.

Covering an inner-city block, the memorial is surrounded on three sides by

busy city streets, and is, on the ground plane, a topography of 2,711 concrete stelae

(Figure 3). Astrid Schmeing observes its effect on memory construction:

It is not a representation of memory so much as it is part of memory. It is an

unconventional memorial that does not suggest how to remember. A conventional

memorial would perhaps provide a figure to be ‘looked at’. The figurative object,

witnessed by the observer’s external perspective, would provide a sense of wholeness

of ‘completion’, which would suggest ‘how to remember’. This memorial, however,

refuses to do so. There is no figure, and one does not even face an ‘object’. Instead,

the individual moves within and inside the components of the memorial. One’s

body becomes involved as a part of it, and the memorial is only complete when

faced by each, single participating observer. Any form of memory transported to it

by the observer becomes part of the memorial.16

Figure 3. Memorial to the

Murdered Jews of Europe,

Berlin, Germany. Photo by

author (2007).


383

With no site description, the “non-representational” form of the Memorial to the

Murdered Jews of Europe possesses no “official” narrative or interpretation. Peter

Eisenman, the architect, stated at the opening ceremony that a key purpose of the

memorial was to allow “future generations to draw their own conclusions. Not to

direct them what to think, but allow them to think.”17 Having no single entrance,

no centre, no endpoint, and no explanation, the memorial stands today as a

prompt for individual interpretation. This architectural awareness, that the needs

and challenges that face society change through time, is met through the central

aim of the memorial by the invitation to self-reflect.

Indicating the importance of historical layers within the memoryscapes, Paul

Spiegel, President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, stated at the opening

ceremony of the memorial: “without historical memory, without the authentic

places of annihilation, every abstract memorial will, in the long run, lose its effect

as a sign against forgetting”.18 The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe,

when considered within the wider memoryscape of Germany today, stands as a

central point of remembrance: “May it contribute to keeping alive the memory

which threatens to grow dim as the voices of the contemporary witnesses to the

Holocaust fall silent.”19

Representation and the interpretation of memory—Cambodia

For Cambodia, the official interpretation of memorials developed within the post-

genocide period was put forward by the Vietnamese/Cambodian government

of the time to display evidence and seek approval for Vietnam’s invasion and

subsequent occupation of the war-torn nation.20 Mai Lam, the Vietnamese war

crimes researcher involved in creating both national memorial sites—the Tuol

Sleng Genocide Museum (Figures 4 & 5) and the Choeung Ek Memorial Centre

(Figures 6 & 7)—constructed an official memory for Cambodia. The memorial

sites “encouraged viewers to make connections between the DK [Democratic

Kampuchea] regime and Tuol Sleng on the one hand, and Nazi Germany … on

the other”.21

With little change to the memorial sites over the past 20-30 years this

official narrative continues to direct interpretation of the national memorial sites

today. Strongly orientated around the preservation and documentation of first-

hand evidence—victim remains, clothing, torture equipment, mass graves, and

photographs are displayed as central features—the genocide memoryscape of

Cambodia is a clear illustration of instructive didactic representational memory. As

such, individuals, whether an international tourist or a local citizen, have limited

opportunity for individual interpretation.


384

Figure 4. Tuol Sleng Genocide

Museum, Phnom Penh,

Cambodia. Photo by author

(2007).

Figure 5. Portraits of S-21

prisoners displayed as a central

focus within the Tuol Sleng

Genocide Museum, Phnom

Penh, Cambodia. Photo by

author (2007).

Figure 6. The Memorial Stupa at

Choeung Ek houses the skeletal

remains of 8,000 exhumed

victims of the 1970s genocide.

Choeung Ek Genocidal Centre,

Cambodia. Photo by author

(2007).

Figure 7. Interior view of the

Memorial Stupa, Choeung Ek

Genocidal Centre, Cambodia.

Photo by author (2007).

Interpretation and the representation of memory—Rwanda

Also strongly orientated around aspects of presentation, documentation, and

education, the Kigali Memorial Centre in Rwanda (Figures 8 & 9) was designed by

a United Kingdom-based genocide prevention charity in conjunction with the Kigali

City Council. Today the memorial is a place to bury the dead (258,000 victims

of the 1994 genocide rest within the grave terraces). It is a place for family and

friends to mourn the victims, and also for visitors to learn about the process and

reality of genocide, both local and global.

The memorial states an official aim to educate Rwandans about the processes

of genocide in a hope to prevent its return both in Africa and the world. Sarah

Steele states:

… the direct participation of Western consultants and Holocaust survivor artists in

the construction of the site, the integration of tri-lingual [Kinyarwandan, English

and French] exhibits and the inclusion of materials that seek to involve and engage

an international audience suggests that it is not simply an unintended product of

Western participation in the building of the Centre, but rather a reflection of a desire

to engage a broader visitor base.22


385

This approach deconstructs the genocide in Rwanda as a “tribal” problem, “By

highlighting that genocide is not a symptom of African barbarity, but rather a

violence that has been perpetrated in many societies” seeking to “break down

ethicised narrative”.23 Attempting to squash any remnants of genocide ideology

within the nation, the Rwandan government and Aegis Trust were acutely

conscious of creating a representational memorial that educated on the overall

process of genocide, the facts and figures, the personal stories and narratives,

and also the international context of genocide during the twentieth century. The

government, in attempting to stem the flow of genocide ideology, is actively

working to create a genocide education programme which will eventually be aided

by the educational facility of the Memorial Centre.

The “official interpretation” of these national memorial sites put forward by

the respective governments of Cambodia and Rwanda has dominated the memorial

form, and therefore the experience and interpretation, of Western visitors to these

memorials through the site design and information provided.

Figure 8. Main exhibition

building, Kigali Memorial

Centre, Kigali, Rwanda. Photo

by author (2008).

Figure 9. Mass Grave terrace,

Kigali Memorial Centre, Kigali,

Rwanda. Photo by author

(2008).

Set alongside these strong official narratives and the didactic, representational

nature of the memorial form, the national memorial sites of both Cambodia and

Rwanda also elucidate clearly a visual and spatial relationship to the Western

treatment of memorialising the Jewish Holocaust. The sites therefore transform a

distant event for many visitors into one that is more “comprehendible”—through

“pre-understanding”. Termed “cues to connect”, the concept of placing an

unfamiliar cultural expression within a frame of familiarity for the viewing public

is one based on Joan Nassauer’s “cue to care”.

She illustrates how, when placed within a social landscape of “care”,

ecologically valuable habitats become visible through the frame of human

intention, and culturally acceptable through the familiar cultural language of a

tended landscape.24 Nassauer realised that to get people to engage with a site, it

was necessary to have something familiar for them to identify with—a cue.25 Used

within this research, the term “cues to connect” defines those design strategies

or site features at genocide memorials in Cambodia and Rwanda that (either

consciously or unconsciously) engage Western visitors by placing the “distant” or

“less familiar” history expressed at these sites within pre-understood and culturally

acceptable “Western” frames.


386

In this way, the represented narrative of memorial sites in these two countries was

seen to become more accessible to the Western visitor. For example, the octagon

is an architectural symbol that crosses both the Jewish and Christian faiths, where

the eight-sided form has manifested itself in religious representation in a range

of ways throughout time. In the Jewish faith, eight is the number that symbolises

salvation and regeneration, and is associated with the eighth letter of the

Hebrew alphabet called ‘Chet’ which has the symbolic meaning of “new birth”

or “new beginning”.

In early Christianity, eight was the number which symbolised the resurrection

of Jesus Christ and the formation of the New Covenant. The eight-sided form can

today be seen prominently in European religious architecture, and also in religious

forms such as the church font used in baptising Christian children. In relation to

genocide memorialisation, the octagon is a prominent form in the architecture of

many genocide memorial sites including: the “Hall of Remembrance” at the U.S.

Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC, Beth Shalom—the U.K. Holocaust

Centre; and the Kigali Memorial Centre, Rwanda (Figure 10).

Examples, where the “less familiar” history of Cambodia and Rwanda is seen

to become more accessible to the Western visitor through pre-understood cultural

frames (particularly those commonly seen in the memorialisation of the Jewish

Holocaust), are numerous. These include the display of victim clothing and

genocide artefacts, the lists of victim names engraved into stone walls, rooms of

victim photographs, the emotive horror of the display of mass graves, the direct

connection made through comparative exhibitions such as the “Genocides of the

World” exhibition at the Kigali Memorial Centre, and the emotive wording used in

on-site information boards.

Figure 10. The octagonal

architectural form plays

a prominent role in the

symbolic language of the

Kigali Memorial Centre, Kigali,

Rwanda. Photo by author

(2008).


387

The act of providing (intentionally or not) on-site Western “cues to connect”

is a significant aspect of memorial form in both Cambodia and Rwanda, and

indeed plays an important role in the international memory of genocide. The case

study sites of the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and the Choeung Ek Genocidal

Centre in Cambodia, and the Kigali Memorial Centre in Rwanda, provide

powerful experiences for the Western visitor. These facilities direct an interpretive

perspective through their representational memorials that encourages a global

connection to these places and people through the development of pre-understood

Western frames.

Particular examples of this “connection” are seen in the visitor book entries at

the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum. With the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the West’s

“war on terror” in Afghanistan and Iraq, the tone of entries in the visitor books

speak of a globalised world burdened by the reoccurrence of tragic actions. It

also illustrates how international visitors connect with the site through “Western”

events and memories. For example, one visitor wrote in 2004: “The USA supported

the Khmer Rouge. Now they have their own S-21 in Guantanamo where they keep

and torture people without trial.” Another, from Ireland, commented in 2003:

“Cambodia will never move forward unless they deal with this history. Why don’t

the big shots like Bush and Blair help, instead of starting another war?”

The post-genocide memoryscapes of Cambodia and Rwanda today act as

repositories of meaning—potent containers of memory. For Western tourists,

corporeal artefacts common to all human civilisations (such as skulls, bones, and

clothes presented on-site in these “foreign” nations) cross traditional cultural and

linguistic boundaries. They connect the “human” self to site and context through

the intrinsic reality of death and what it is to be human. Vitally important to the

landscape of memory, these sites are likely to always be sacred places within

post-genocide nations. As is seen today, however, with the hopes and expectations

of Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, a “new” generation of non-

representational memorials, dedicated to the practice of individual interpretation,

may have the greatest ability to prompt self-reflection—to have “meaning”.

The German memoryscape of genocide, where the informational didactic

layers of “architectural parlante” offered by such representational memorials as

Sachsenhausen, are today layered with a non-representational memorial space

for “willed participation” with the creation of the Memorial to the Murdered Jews

of Europe. The physical embodiment of genocide memory within the memorial

enhances its potential to be sustained. Although this research indicated that

Western visitors do engage with the existing representational memorial landscapes

of Cambodia and Rwanda, restrictions on the interpretative qualities expressed at

these sites sees a vulnerability in their long-term sustainability—in their enduring

ability to speak through time and culture—as the needs around them change.

Arthur Danto, philosopher and art critic, wrote: “We erect monuments so that

we shall always remember, and build memorials so that we shall never forget.”26

As the World War II generation disappears, what yesterday and today could be

narrated by first-hand witnesses must tomorrow be passed on through memory.


388

Set within the cultural landscape, genocide memoryscapes are today emerging as

key sites of memory in an ever more globalised world. Their role in ensuring the

acts of remembering and not forgetting must rest upon their effectiveness as sites

which prompt meaningful connection with genocide, giving form to the aspiration

of “never again”.

Endnotes

1Brian S. Osborne, “Landscapes, Memory, Monuments, and Commemoration: Putting

Identity in its Place,” Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 33(3), (2001): 40.2Peter Tonkin and Janet Laurence, “Space And Memory: A Meditation on Memorials

and Monuments,” Architecture Australia 92(5), (2003): 48.3Osborne, “Landscapes, Memory, Monuments,” 40.4William Wishard, “Understanding Our Moment in History: Tapping into the Internal

Renewal Dynamic,” New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal 11(39), (2002),

accessed November 5, 2011, http://www.ru.org/society/understanding-our-moment-in-

history.html5Serge Thion, Watching Cambodia (Bangkok: White Lotus, 1993), 181-82.66 John Lennon and Malcolm Foley, Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster

(London: Continuum, 2000), 3.7Tonkin and Laurence, “Space And Memory,” 48.8William Whyte, “How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in the

History of Architecture,” History and Theory 45 (2006): 154.9Justine Clark, “Criticism,” Architecture Australia 93(2), (2004): 18.10Juan Pablo Bonta, “An Anatomy of Architectural Interpretation: A Semiotic Review

of the Criticism of Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion,” in Anatomia de la

Interpretacion en Arquitectur (Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1974), 72.11Michael Payne, A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory (Oxford: Blackwell,

1997), 440.12Jutta Dommaschk ed., Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum (Berlin: Stadtwandel

Verlag, 2005) 8.13Dommaschk, Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum, 12.14Dommaschk, Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum, 18.15Dommaschk, Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum, 19.16Astrid Schmeing, “Eisenman’s Design for the Berlin Holocaust Memorial – A Modern

Statement?,” Architectural Design 70(5), (2000): 62.17Peter Eisenman, “Architect,” in Opening Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

10 May 2005 Speeches and Pictures (Berlin: The Foundation for the Memorial to the

Murdered Jews of Europe, 2005), 31. 18Paul Spiegal, “President of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany,” in Opening

Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe 10 May 2005 Speeches and Pictures (Berlin:

The Foundation for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, 2005), 26. 19Spiegel, “President of the Central Council,” 27.


389

20Judy Ledgerwood, “The Cambodian Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide Crimes:

National Narrative,” in Genocide, Collective Violence, & Popular Memory: The Politics of

Remembrance in the Twentieth Century, eds. D.E. Lorey and W.H. Beesley (Wilmington:

Scholarly Resources Inc, 2002), 103.21David Chandler, Terror and History in Pol Pot’s Prison (Chaing Mai: Silkworm Books,

1999), 5.22Sarah Steele, “Memorialisation and the Land of the Eternal Spring: Performative

Practices of Memory on the Rwandan Genocide” (Paper presented to the PASSAGES:

Law, Aesthetics, Politics Conference, Melbourne, 13-14 July 2006).23Steele, “Memorialisation and the Land.”24Joan Nassauer, “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames,” Landscape Journal

14(2), (1995). 25Nassauer, “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames.”26Arthur Danto et al., Wake of Art: Criticism, Philosophy, and the Ends of Taste (Critical

Voices in Art, Theory and Culture), (1st edn), (Amsterdam, G+B Arts International,

1998), 153.

Bibliography

Bonta, Juan Pablo, “An Anatomy of Architectural Interpretation: A Semiotic Review

of the Criticism of Mies van der Rohe’s Barcelona Pavilion,” in Anatomia de la

Interpretacion en Arquitectura (Barcelona: Editorial Gustavo Gili, 1974).

Chandler, David, Voices from S-21: Terror and History in Pol Pot’s Prison (Chaing

Mai: Silkworm Books, 1999).

Clark, Justine, “Criticism,” Architecture Australia 93(2), (2004): 18.

Danto, Arthur, Gregg Horowitz, Tom Huhn and Saul Ostrow, Wake of Art:

Criticism, Philosophy, and the Ends of Taste (Critical Voices in Art, Theory and

Culture), (1st edn), (Amsterdam, G+B Arts International, 1998).

Dommaschk, Jutta ed., Sachsenhauen Memorial and Museum (Berlin, Stadtwandel

Verlag, 2005).

Eisenman, Peter, “Architect,” in Opening Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

10 May 2005 Speeches and Pictures (Berlin, The Foundation for the Memorial to the

Murdered Jews of Europe, 2005).

Ledgerwood, Judy, “The Cambodian Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide Crimes:

National Narrative,” in Genocide, Collective Violence, & Popular Memory: The

Politics of Remembrance in the Twentieth Century, eds. D.E. Lorey and W.H.

Beesley (Wilmington, Scholarly Resources Inc, 2002), 103-04.


390

Lennon, John and Malcolm Foley, Tourism: The Attraction of Death and Disaster

(London, Continuum, 2000).

Nassauer, Joan, “Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames,” Landscape Journal 14(2),

(1995): 161-70.

Osborne, Brian S., “Landscapes, Memory, Monuments, and Commemoration:

Putting Identity in its Place,” Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 33(3), (2001): 39-79.

Payne, Michael, “A Dictionary of Cultural and Critical Theory,” (Oxford:

Blackwell, 1997).

Schmeing, Astrid, “Eisenman’s Design for the Berlin Holocaust Memorial – A

Modern Statement?,” Architectural Design 70(5), (2000): 60-65.

Spiegel, Paul, “President of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany,” in

Opening Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe 10 May 2005 Speeches

and Pictures (Berlin, The Foundation for the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of

Europe, 2005).

Steele, Sarah, “Memorialisation and the Land of the Eternal Spring: Performative

Practices of Memory on the Rwandan Genocide,” Paper presented to the

PASSAGES: Law, Aesthetics, Politics Conference, Melbourne, 13-14 July 2006.

Thion, Serge, Watching Cambodia (Bangkok, White Lotus, 1993).

Tonkin, Peter and Janet Laurence, “Space And Memory: A Meditation on

Memorials and Monuments,” Architecture Australia 92(5), (2003): 48-49.

Whyte, William, “How Do Buildings Mean? Some Issues of Interpretation in the

History of Architecture,” History and Theory 45 (2006): 153-77.

Wishard, William, “Understanding Our Moment in History: Tapping into the

Internal Renewal Dynamic,” New Renaissance Magazine: Renaissance Universal

11(39), (2002), accessed November 5, 2011, http://www.ru.org/society/

understanding-our-moment-in-history.html

Biographical notes

Dr Shannon Davis is a lecturer in the School of Landscape Architecture, Lincoln

University, New Zealand. Having worked as a Landscape Architect in the U.K.

undertaking both urban design and environmental planning projects, she returned

to this country in 2006 to complete her PhD. Undertaking doctoral research

investigating post-genocide memoryscapes—memorial landscapes, she spent time

in Cambodia, Rwanda, and Germany conducting field studies exploring the role of

site design in shaping Western tourist experience of genocide memorials. Teaching

papers in design theory, spatial planning, and sustainable design, her current


391

research is focused on investigating sustainability and the rapid urbanisation of the

global south, specifically investigating the design and masterplanning of proposed

“new” cities.

Email: [email protected]

Dr Jacky Bowring is an Associate Professor, School of Landscape Architecture,

Lincoln University, New Zealand, and Editor of Landscape Review. Her research

investigates the intersection between melancholy and memory. She is author of

A Field Guide to Melancholy (2008). Jacky has been successful in a number of

memorial and cemetery design competitions including finalist Pentagon Memorial

(2002), a Cavalier Bremworth Award for a memorial for road workers killed in the

Otira Gorge (2000), and the Holy Trinity Cathedral Memorial Garden in Auckland

(2007).

Email: [email protected]

Connecting with Tragedy Through Landscapes of …memoryconnection.org/.../12/ShannonDavisJackyBowring.pdf—Shannon Davis and Jacky Bowring 379 those involved. From built, spatial,

Documents